Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: significant math

Author: Russell Reagan

Date: 13:22:14 11/19/02

Go up one level in this thread

On November 19, 2002 at 16:14:07, Dan Andersson wrote:

>Different engines, no way to compare them due to different eval and so forth.
>You would have to compare one program using two different board implementations
>to get some solid data. But even then you would have problems deciding why one
>implementation is faster.
>MvH Dan Andersson

My point is only that an engine that uses bitboards is comparable with one that
doesn't use bitboards. He asked for evidence this time, not proof. You can't
prove either to be clearly better than the other, but you can give evidence that
they are comparable in terms of performance.

The point was to show that Vincent's statement about first taking a 50% speed
hit before adding the 33% speed increase is not valid. There is no 50% speed
decrease when compared with non-bitboard engines. There is only the 33%

This page took 0.29 seconds to execute

Last modified: Thu, 07 Jul 11 08:48:38 -0700

Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.